Abstract
Over the past two decades, the world has experienced privatization on a massive scale. Industrial and developing countries alike are putting up entire sectors for sale, including those once considered off limits, such as telecommunications, railroads, and national airlines. The numbers speak for themselves. According to Privatization International, more than 100 countries have divested public assets. In 1997, the value of worldwide privatization reached a record sum of more than U.S.$162 billion, equivalent to 0.5 percent of world economic output. The three preceding years had already seen record levels of privatization of U.S.$90 billion, U.S.$76 billion and U.S.$78 billion respectively.[1] In addition to western Europe, Latin America, and Asia, numerous African countries have lately joined the movement, as have countries that are still under communist rule, such as China and Cuba.[2]
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Baker (1998).
See Gibbon (1997).
See OECD (1994).
Young and Reynolds (1994) argue that the quality of privatization in post-communist countries is very poor, and that unless additional institutional changes are made, “what will result will not be real market economies, but inefficient, partially collectivized, hybrid economies in which a bureaucratic elite still succeeds in exploiting the bulk of the population.”
In Germany, the term “Haushaltskonsolidierung” (budget consolidation) was even voted most popular word of the year in 1995.
See World Bank (1997).
Alesina and Drazen (1991), for example, explain the delay of economic stabilization on the basis of a “war of attrition” model.
This method was dubbed “people’s capitalism”.
See Harvard Business School (1988).
See Schipke(1994).
On the question of whether there are cycles of privatization and nationalization, see Siegmund (1996).
The exception is that mass privatization can be used to limit the inflationary impact of a monetary overhang that might have existed prior to the transformation period.
A few studies have started to focus on aspects such as fiscal and monetary issues of privatization. See, for example, Davies, et. al. (2000). For an overview of traditional microeconomic aspects of privatization see, for example, Bös (1991), Maskin (1992) and Galal, et. al. (1992). On privatization methods see Vuylstek (1989).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schipke, A. (2001). Introduction. In: Why Do Governments Divest?. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56682-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56682-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-62573-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-56682-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive